Database Consolidation – Named instance vs default instance

I have searched SO, but cannot find a question/answer close enough.

We are busy consolidating our database servers, partially due to address performance issues using cross-server (cross-instance – SEE: RPC) queries. A lot of extra thought is put to trying to manage the “chunk of data over the linked server” vs just letting the compiler help.

  • SQL Server Triggers - grouping by transactions
  • Stop Inserting in Table if record already exists
  • SQL Count query on how many fields have another field with a value
  • SQL Server CTE -Find top parentID forEach childID?
  • inserting records from specific columns in one table to another table depending on multiple criteria
  • Is there a SQL Server Profiler for SQL Server Express?
  • During installation, we are faced with the issue of using the default instance (.) vs. using a named instance MSSQL2016. My experience, thus far, suggest the named instance for two reasons – obscurity for security (to a lesser degree) AND the flexibility for side-by-side (upgrade, test, etc.). We use Alias’ anyway, so pointing them after installation to the “SAME” instance or different, is not going to make any real difference.

    We currently have a cluster and plan to move it into a single HyperV VM. The CPU for the host (64 cores 128 GB Memory) “purrs” at 10%, so we want the compiler to start working for it’s meal.

    SUMMARY: Best Practice – Should we install a named instance or use default instance for production. Most of us are programmers – so more bang for buck is better.

    One Solution collect form web for “Database Consolidation – Named instance vs default instance”

    Use a default instance. You can always add additional named instances later. But with VMs it’s increasingly rare to need multiple instances per VM.

    MS SQL Server is a Microsoft SQL Database product, include sql server standard, sql server management studio, sql server express and so on.